DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9, 17 have been amended.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 9, 17 have been considered and are accepted. The Examiner finds that applicant's amendments do have support in applicant's as-filed disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims under the prior art have been fully considered. However, those arguments are rendered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection outlined below, which were necessitated by the applicant's amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The aforementioned claims all recite ‘an authentication’. It is unclear whether this recitation of ‘an authentication’ is the same or different that the previously recited ‘an authentication’ in the respective independent claims. Thus, due to these ambiguities, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-9, 10-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laine et al. (US Pub. 20170118204 A1) and further in view of Lin et al. (US Pub. 20220261468 A1).
Laine discloses the following limitations:
(currently amended) An earbud, comprising:
a pressure sensor configured to generate pressure samples when the earbud is inserted at least partially in an ear canal of an ear of a first user (para. 24);
a profiler configured to generate a first biometric marker from the pressure samples (para. 40);
a comparer configured to generate a first comparison result based on a comparison of the first biometric marker with a first stored biometric marker associated with an authorized user of the earbud, the first stored biometric marker indicative of an in-ear biometric profile of the authorized user (para. 45); and
an authenticator configured to perform an authentication of the first user based at least on the first comparison result (para. 45).
Laine does not specifically teach that the pressure samples are from contact force between the earbud and an ear canal. However, in the related art of ear-based biometric authentication, Lin discloses pressure samples that are from contact force between the earbud and an ear canal. (see para. 50-51). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use this teaching of Lin with the disclosure of Laine as a known alternative way to of measuring pressure in the ear to be used in biometric authentication.
3. The earbud of claim 1, further comprising:
an acoustic sensor configured to generate acoustic samples when the earbud is inserted at least partially in the ear canal of the first user, the acoustic sensor configured to measure acoustic reflections in the ear canal (para. 23);
wherein the profiler is configured to generate a second biometric marker from the acoustic samples (para. 23);
wherein the comparer is configured to generate a second comparison result based on a comparison of the second biometric marker with a second stored biometric marker associated with the authorized user, the second stored biometric marker indicative of an in-ear acoustic profile of the authorized user (para. 45); and
wherein the authenticator is configured to perform an authentication of the first user based at least on the first and second comparison results. (para. 33-34)
4. The earbud of claim 1, wherein the earbud includes an outer case portion and an inner case portion, the outer case portion configured to be positioned exterior to the ear canal in conjunction with the inner case portion being positioned in the ear canal; wherein the inner case portion comprises pressure sensors, including the pressure sensor, in at least a partial ring around a circumference of the inner case portion.(Figs. 2A, 2B)
5. The earbud of claim 1, wherein the earbud includes an outer case portion and an inner case portion, the outer case portion configured to be positioned exterior to the ear canal in conjunction with the inner case portion being positioned in the ear canal; and wherein the outer case portion comprises pressure sensors that include the pressure sensor. (Figs. 2A, 2B)
6. The earbud of claim 1, wherein the earbud includes an inner case portion, an outer case portion, and a compression fitting formed by or coupled to the outer case portion, wherein the compression fitting is configured to contact a concha cymba of the ear of the first user in conjunction with the inner case portion positioned in the ear canal and the outer case portion positioned exterior to the ear canal; wherein the compression fitting is configured to transfer contact pressure from the concha cymba to the pressure sensor. (Figs. 2A, 2B, para. 24)
7. The earbud of claim 1, wherein said authenticator configured to perform an authentication comprises the authenticator configured to: authenticate the first user as the authorized user; and enable at least one function of the earbud. (para. 34)
8. The earbud of claim 7, wherein said authenticator configured to enable comprises the authenticator configured to perform at least one of: adjusting at least one audio setting of the earbud; or playing audio during a phone call on a device communicatively coupled with the earbud. (para. 36, 30)
20. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, the method further comprising: performing a personalization of the ear bud for the first user based at least on the first comparison result. (para. 36)
Claims 2, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Laine and Lin and further in view of Khaleghimeybodi et al. (US Pub. 20230240609 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, Laine discloses a heartbeat sensor configured to (para. 26); wherein the profiler is configured to generate a second biometric marker from the (para. 26); wherein the comparer is configured to generate a second comparison result based on a comparison of the second biometric marker with a second stored biometric marker associated with the authorized user, the second stored biometric marker indicative of an in-ear (para. 26); and wherein the authenticator is configured to perform an authentication of the first user based at least on the first and second comparison results (para. 33-34).
Although Laine teaches measuring heartbeat using a heartbeat sensor to be used in authentication, it does not specifically teach that the heartbeat sensor is measuring blood volume in the samples. However, this subject matter is known and used in the art of measuring biometrics in headsets as evidenced by Khaleghimeybodi (see para. 43). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use this teaching of Khaleghimeybodi with the disclosure of Laine as a known alternative way of measuring the heartbeat in a user’s ear.
Regarding claims 9-16, the subject matter claimed pertain to method steps that correspond to the system elements of claims 1-8 and thus rejected for the same analysis. Implementing the system would have necessitated carrying through the method steps as recited.
Regarding claims 17-19, they merely recites a computer program that when executed, performs the functional steps of method claims 9-16, and thus, rejected for the same rationale. (para. 53)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A CORUM JR whose telephone number is (303)297-4234. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571)272-6798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM A CORUM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights